Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[codyjuneau]

But there are so many evidences. From Knox's veneration of Laura and copying her ear piercings to the witnesses description of her wierd attempts to grab attention. There is details everywhere.
Then Halloween night. The series of SMS Amanda sent Meredith, Amanda dressed in a cat costume who sobs alone because Meredith never answered, stayed with her English friends and let her spent the night alone with Lumumba and then Sollecito. Meredith letting her alone with "Shakey" without warning her, despite she knew his habits. Even in Sollecito's book, he admits that she didn't attend Meredith much over those days because "Meredith's friends didn't like her". Sollecito writes this himself!

So you are basically suggesting that Meredith was a Mean Girl You really don't care how much you insult the memory of MK, if you can sling any mud at AK

You definitely have an odd idea of women, if you think a bit of low level high school bitching is going to make a woman murderous

.
Not even accurate, but such an odd idea of evidence anyway? If any of the trivial nonsense Machi mentions was indicative of a murderer, the streets of every town and city in the world would be bathed with blood.

But it is insightful, because Machi's posts apparently reflect the thinking of the prosecuting team in Perugia.

Cody
.

 

[Dan O.]

Specifically, Sophie Purton stated on Nov. 08. 2007 that ..., and in Feb 2009 she stated that ...

Amy Frost on Nov. 08. pointed out that ...

Robyn Butterworth on Nov. 08. declared that ...

This testimony goes to Meredith's feelings about Amanda. Where is the testimony that says Amanda resented Meredith? Where is the evidence that Amanda even knew Meredith was talking to her English friends about Amanda?

Just one witness, or diary entry, or letter home, or email, or carrier pigeon, or smoke signal . . . just one. You don't get to say that because Meredith clearly talked a little smack about Amanda behind her back, Amanda must have known it and been angry about it.

Did you notice how all this came out after the police had publicly declared that Amanda and Raffaele were guilty? Didn't the English girls get interviewed on Novembr 2? Did they mention this feud going on between Amanda and Meredith at that time?

 

[Samson]

Did you notice how all this came out after the police had publicly declared that Amanda and Raffaele were guilty? Didn't the English girls get interviewed on Novembr 2? Did they mention this feud going on between Amanda and Meredith at that time?

Machiavelli has lied like a flat fish in his post above. I studied her last texts with Meredith, and it was crystal clear Meredith had a prior engagement, yet was very open to all possibilities.

"what are you doing? xx"
(from memory, if Machiavelli has the exact exchange he will furnish it to prove something)

ETA, Nell compiled this the other day, thank you Nell from PMF dot net

Quote:

In the time between the 18th of October leading up to the day of the murder, the girls exchange a few messages and phone calls. On the 31st of October Amanda Knox sent Meredith an SMS:

Quote:
”What are you doing tonight? Want to meet? Do you have a costume?”

Meredith replied a few minutes later:

Quote:
”Yes, I have to go to a friend’s house for dinner. What’s your program?”

Amanda Knox responds:

Quote:
I’m going to Le Chic for a while and then, who knows? Maybe we meet? Call me."

There are no further phone calls or text messages after that except for the time after the murder.

End quote.

A reminder, Machiavelli has determined the above exchange is correctly reconstructed as the following.

Then Halloween night. The series of SMS Amanda sent Meredith, Amanda dressed in a cat costume who sobs alone because Meredith never answered, stayed with her English friends and let her spent the night alone with Lumumba and then Sollecito.

 

[Strozzi]

Specifically, Sophie Purton stated on Nov. 08. 2007 that there were "many things of Amanda that Meredith didn't like", and in Feb 2009 she stated that Meredith felt annoyed by some things, one topic she remembers well is of Amanda's bathroom habits.
Amy Frost on Nov. 08. pointed out that Meredith was annoyed by the fact that she had found toilet paper dirty with menstrual blood and had to tell her to be more careful because she really couldn't stand that, and mentioned again the habit of not flushing the toilet.
Robyn Butterworth on Nov. 08. declared that Meredith and Amanda had a discussion because the latter had the habit of not flushing the toilet not even when she had her period. Therefore Robyn said she was stunned when she heard Knox commenting repeatedly about "****" in the toilet at the police station.

I note that part of testimonies from multiple witnesses, the one closest to Meredith and Amanda, revolves around a concept of dirt and poor hygiene.

Machiavelli, are you aware that Meredith was "borrowing" condoms with Amanda's consent from Amanda's toilet bag so that Meredith and Giacomo could have safe sex? Meredith apparently liked Amanda enough to borrow condoms from her.

If she didn't like Amanda, Meredith likely would not have been so open with Amanda about Meredith's need for condoms. Meredith could easily have asked Filomena or Laura to lend her one or Meredith could have gone to the drugstore. Or asked Giacomo to treat her like a lady and bring them himself. If Giacomo didn't have any on hand, he probably could have borrowed one from one of his flatmates. It's not like Giacomo would have had to spend any money on Meredith!

 

[NancyS]

Agreed: young, a bit wild, took drugs, but we have to account for the diversity of human beings and their psychology before sending the "pathology" signal that would reduce the responsibility of one's acts.

They were young and smoked some cannabis, but definitely not wild. If anything, AK/RS were a bit geeky - and were definitely not young ravers partying for days on end or even heavy drinkers, downing shots until they stumbled home in the early hours

 

[NancyS]

This doesn't make sense, the correct wording is:

After 46 days during which everybody and everything entered that room, how could that clasp not be dirty/dusty(if you wish)?

Contamination is a rare process, one star among billions. The logic above is like saying, "I'm a young beautiful teenage girl, how come for my 18th birthday i haven't received a love letter from a celebrity actor.

I'd totally disagree, maybe you mean contaminated by someone who had no legitimate contact. Everything is continually contaminated by the environment and people you come into contact with. RS had legitimate contact with MK earlier that day and had visited the cottage on a number of occasions - it wouldn't be unusual for his DNA to have been found anywhere - and if the police were to test enough items in a shoddy way, it wouldn't be unusual for DNA to be found of any of the people that MK had been in contact with earlier that day.

I agree that it would be much rarer to be contaminated with the DNA of someone who had no previous contact with MK or the cottage, which is why the finding of Guede's DNA is so significant

 

[Matthew Best]

Contamination is a rare process, one star among billions.

Obviously if, like Stefanoni, you don't look for something, you are never going to find it.

But I'd need to see evidence that contamination is a billion-to-one event. Certainly more evidence than an unsupported assertion from a translator.

 

[Diocletus]

Contamination is a rare process, one star among billions.

Um, no it's not. Especially in Stefanoni's lab, where we have already documented contamination events in her PCR processes. You don't seem to be keeping up.

 

[Strozzi]

I see. So then, like Mignini, you fancy yourself an amateur psychologist.

I'll say this: in my view, Mignini's lunacy is exceeded only by your self-proclaimed abilities to assess psychic instability on the basis of a woman's body odor. The fact that you have made no such claims with regard to Ms. Knox should end all debate as to whether you have a genuinely intimate connection to the prosecution in this case. I mean, if you were ever at the prosecutor's table, at some point surely you would have gotten close enough to smell her. And then all bets would be off, agreed?

Please allow me to clarify what the above is referring to. Machiavelli earlier expressed discomfort with a female neighbor of his who is Canadian. She had an odor that Machiavelli disliked. It was pointed out to Mach that the odor he noticed must be maple syrup, as all Canadian girls smell like maple syrup. Machiaveilli made no such claims regarding Miss Knox, as she is from Seattle and would not smell of Canadian maple syrup. More like salmon, I would think!

 

[Samson]

Obviously if, like Stefanoni, you don't look for something, you are never going to find it.

But I'd need to see evidence that contamination is a billion-to-one event. Certainly more evidence than an unsupported assertion from a translator.

I am really staggered that evidence planting is skirted in the discussion. The first murder conviction I took note of was evidence planting to keep the case alive, Arthur Thomas. The wikipedia article is unequivocal. The reasoning is noble cause corruption.

With the bra clasp, there was motive and opportunity in spades. Everyone is in a way according some respectabilty to these Italian thugs.

 

[LondonJohn]

Obviously if, like Stefanoni, you don't look for something, you are never going to find it.

But I'd need to see evidence that contamination is a billion-to-one event. Certainly more evidence than an unsupported assertion from a translator.

Particularly when we're talking about contamination at low-template quantities, and when the precise part of the item in question (the small metal hook on the bra clasp in this case) has been provably handled - and passed around! - by slipshod, incompetent forensics technicians who demonstrably had dirty gloves while doing so (on top of the utterly inexcusable fact that they were using their hands to manipulate this item in the first place, rather than sterile tweezers).

And in this instance, regarding the potential source of contamination DNA, Sollecito alleges that he was trying hard to open the door with his bare hands. If that's true, then there would have been firm friction contact between his hands and the door handle and the frame of the door. And in the course of such contact, it's highly probable that significant quantities of Sollecito's epithelial DNA would have been transferred to the door. That door was subsequently handled (and taken off its hinges) by a number of unknown people. I would therefore judge it entirely reasonable that in the course of this manipulation of the door, some of Sollecito's DNA could have been transferred. Of course, the "crack" forensics team didn't even test the outer (i.e. hallway-facing) surface/handle of the door, since they deemed it was irrelevant to the investigation! Brilliant!

And of course lastly there's the pesky problem of the other males' DNA presence on that bra clasp. It's simply improper and illogical to wave that evidence away - as the learned Nencini did - by suggesting that the DNA came to be on the bra as a result of (unknown) males handling Kercher's bra some time before her death in the normal course of things. The only reasonable explanation for there being more than one additional male profile on the bra clasp is post-crime contamination. And if that's the case, then it stands to reason that Sollecito's DNA presence can reasonably be explained by contamination as well.

 

[Kauffer]

Did you notice how all this came out after the police had publicly declared that Amanda and Raffaele were guilty? Didn't the English girls get interviewed on Novembr 2? Did they mention this feud going on between Amanda and Meredith at that time?

One of the mysteries is the amount of 'preparation' the English girls were given by Mignini. The prosecution crafted its attack on Ms Knox with a spectacular lack of shame. As Dan suggests, the girls' views were inevitably coloured by their interrogators' public pronouncements on the case, at the very least.

There is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the portrayal of Ms Kercher's attitude to Ms Knox and it is evident from numerous sources.

Here's Natalie Hayward on Ms Kercher, in an interview, for example:

"She was very generous and open and had a very big heart."

Here's Hayward again, in the same interview:

"....she said tensions between the two women, who shared a flat, had been building up for weeks.

Miss Kercher, 21, was "frustrated" with Knox's refusal to do her share of the cleaning, and felt uncomfortable that Knox, 24, kept a vibrator in a transparent wash bag in their shared bathroom.

Relations were not improved by Knox's insistence on strumming her guitar all the time..."

So, according to Hayward, the big hearted, generous spirited Ms Kercher was rendered 'frustrated' and 'uncomfortable' by Ms Knox over these paltry matters. Really?

It doesn't sound very plausible.

How does this meme fit with the substantial evidence of a normal, friendly relationship between Ms Knox and Ms Kercher?

How does any of this come even a tiny bit close to explaining a motive for Ms Knox to kill Ms Kercher?

http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=5459452

 

[Samson]

Agreed: young, a bit wild, took drugs, but we have to account for the diversity of human beings and their psychology before sending the "pathology" signal that would reduce the responsibility of one's acts.

I was just catching up with dot net forum. Eric, you may have a view on this, because she stars in the many videos you have excellently subtitled.

Italian criminologist Roberta Bruzzone has predicted a conviction for Amanda but possibly something different for RS. I guess Amanda's own admission to being at the cottage and the rest of it points to her guilt but the clasp is the only real thing tying RS. Can this be a real possibility? Will the court accept two perps not three?

 

[Strozzi]

One of the mysteries is the amount of 'preparation' the English girls were given by Mignini. The prosecution crafted its attack on Ms Knox with a spectacular lack of shame. As Dan suggests, the girls' views were inevitably coloured by their interrogators' public pronouncements on the case, at the very least.

There is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the portrayal of Ms Kercher's attitude to Ms Knox and it is evident from numerous sources.

Here's Natalie Hayward on Ms Kercher, in an interview, for example:

"She was very generous and open and had a very big heart."

Here's Hayward again, in the same interview:

"....she said tensions between the two women, who shared a flat, had been building up for weeks.

Miss Kercher, 21, was "frustrated" with Knox's refusal to do her share of the cleaning, and felt uncomfortable that Knox, 24, kept a vibrator in a transparent wash bag in their shared bathroom.
Relations were not improved by Knox's insistence on strumming her guitar all the time..."

So, according to Hayward, the big hearted, generous spirited Ms Kercher was rendered 'frustrated' and 'uncomfortable' by Ms Knox over these paltry matters. Really?

It doesn't sound very plausible.

How does this meme fit with the substantial evidence of a normal, friendly relationship between Ms Knox and Ms Kercher?

How does any of this come even a tiny bit close to explaining a motive for Ms Knox to kill Ms Kercher?

http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=5459452

Kercher was not sufficiently 'frustrated' and 'uncomfortable' by Ms. Knox to put Kercher off from 'borrowing' comdoms from Knox's toilet bag.

 

[LondonJohn]

One of the mysteries is the amount of 'preparation' the English girls were given by Mignini. The prosecution crafted its attack on Ms Knox with a spectacular lack of shame. As Dan suggests, the girls' views were inevitably coloured by their interrogators' public pronouncements on the case, at the very least.

There is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the portrayal of Ms Kercher's attitude to Ms Knox and it is evident from numerous sources.

Here's Natalie Hayward on Ms Kercher, in an interview, for example:

"She was very generous and open and had a very big heart."

Here's Hayward again, in the same interview:

"....she said tensions between the two women, who shared a flat, had been building up for weeks.

Miss Kercher, 21, was "frustrated" with Knox's refusal to do her share of the cleaning, and felt uncomfortable that Knox, 24, kept a vibrator in a transparent wash bag in their shared bathroom.

Relations were not improved by Knox's insistence on strumming her guitar all the time..."

So, according to Hayward, the big hearted, generous spirited Ms Kercher was rendered 'frustrated' and 'uncomfortable' by Ms Knox over these paltry matters. Really?

It doesn't sound very plausible.

How does this meme fit with the substantial evidence of a normal, friendly relationship between Ms Knox and Ms Kercher?

How does any of this come even a tiny bit close to explaining a motive for Ms Knox to kill Ms Kercher?

http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=5459452

I totally agree. And as I think we've discussed here a few times before, I think that Kercher's English girlfriends are demonstrating classic ex post facto rationalisation. They've become convinced that Knox played a key malevolent part in the murder of Kercher, and this has subconsciously affected and altered their memory of the character of Knox and the dynamic of Knox's relationship with Kercher.

As you point out, the contradictions are one of the things that help to point to this phenomenon. And as you also point out, it's interesting indeed that within these contradictions, Kercher is painted as the one who had uptight problems and gripes with Knox, while Knox was (seemingly) easy-going and carefree. You'd think if one woman was going to be driven to slaughter the other, using this alleged relationship dynamic as any sort of evidence, it would have been the other way around.........

 

[Kauffer]

After 46 days during which everybody and everything entered that room, how could that clasp not be dirty/dusty(if you wish)?

Contamination is a rare process, one star among billions.

According to Professor Balding, a hero of your group, contamination is common, not rare. In this case, contamination, from the laboratory records that have not been suppressed, is clearly apparent. Do you agree?

So, explain, if you can, Mr Sollecito's DNA on the clasp, as part of a mixed profile (hey, that already sounds like contamination, doesn't it?) and the absence of any other physical evidence in Ms Kercher's room belonging to him (not just DNA). Why is there no other evidence? Why should we not expect to see it, if he were there?

Explain also, the absence of any physical evidence of Ms Knox's presence? Explain all this in the context of all the physical evidence discovered in the room, abundantly belonging only to Guede and Ms Kercher.

Explain what happened in a manner consistent with the evidence in the room and the absence of any transfer evidence on Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito.

 

[NancyS]

One of the mysteries is the amount of 'preparation' the English girls were given by Mignini. The prosecution crafted its attack on Ms Knox with a spectacular lack of shame. As Dan suggests, the girls' views were inevitably coloured by their interrogators' public pronouncements on the case, at the very least.

There is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the portrayal of Ms Kercher's attitude to Ms Knox and it is evident from numerous sources.

Here's Natalie Hayward on Ms Kercher, in an interview, for example:

"She was very generous and open and had a very big heart."

Here's Hayward again, in the same interview:

"....she said tensions between the two women, who shared a flat, had been building up for weeks.

Miss Kercher, 21, was "frustrated" with Knox's refusal to do her share of the cleaning, and felt uncomfortable that Knox, 24, kept a vibrator in a transparent wash bag in their shared bathroom.

Relations were not improved by Knox's insistence on strumming her guitar all the time..."

So, according to Hayward, the big hearted, generous spirited Ms Kercher was rendered 'frustrated' and 'uncomfortable' by Ms Knox over these paltry matters. Really?

It doesn't sound very plausible.

How does this meme fit with the substantial evidence of a normal, friendly relationship between Ms Knox and Ms Kercher?

How does any of this come even a tiny bit close to explaining a motive for Ms Knox to kill Ms Kercher?

http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=5459452

Exactly - and I doubt whether there have ever been any flatmates that haven't done a bit of bitching behind each other's backs. Living with people is hard and ALL people are annoying. I remember an ex-flatmate, who is still one of my best friends, giving the rest of our house a lecture on how to close doors quietly - and although I love my husband, I'm constantly wanting to roast him alive and eat his eyeballs, due to all the very annoying things he does around the house. Having a little bit of a bitch about minor annoyances, is evidence of absolutely nothing. And if this has to be forced into evidence, I guess it is evidence that Meredith was a little bit more catty/two-faced than Amanda - but this seems to go against the other evidence of Meredith being a very sweet person.

If anything, I'm surprised they were not more vicious - Americans abroad get a farily rough deal and the stereotype is that they are loud, annoying and not very 'cool' - I can easily imagine that Meredith's group of very insular friends, did not want to hang around with the American girl, but that says more about their prejudices than it does about Amanda.

 

[lonepinealex]

Is this a tipping point?


Although Knox is American, she's being tried in Italy, where double jeopardy is not something that can save someone from being re-tried for the same case. Due to the extremely high profile and international nature of this case, it's expected that the Italian high court will call for another retrial. It's not uncommon for murder trials to go on for several years through Italy's judicial system, with one famously going back and forth from trial to trial for 22 years.


"[...] In a murder case, if it goes back [to appeal] for a third time, it generally points to enough reasonable doubt to acquit them in the eyes of the court," said Francesco Maresca, the Kercher family's attorney.


http://www.gospelherald.com/article...-has-doubts-that-knox-is-guilty-after-all.htm

Yes unfortunately my bet on next week's conclusion is that there won't be a conclusion. They won't confirm the convictions, but they won't annul them either. They'll send it all back for yet another trial - hey, why not spin this malarkey out for another two years? Then the world will see what a serious case this is and how seriously we, the ISC, are taking it!

 

[carbonjam72]

This doesn't make sense, the correct wording is:

After 46 days during which everybody and everything entered that room, how could that clasp not be dirty/dusty(if you wish)?

Contamination is a rare process, one star among billions. The logic above is like saying, "I'm a young beautiful teenage girl, how come for my 18th birthday i haven't received a love letter from a celebrity actor.

Have you read any posts by Platanov?

 

[carbonjam72]

According to Professor Balding, a hero of your group, contamination is common, not rare. In this case, contamination, from the laboratory records that have not been suppressed, is clearly apparent. Do you agree?

So, explain, if you can, Mr Sollecito's DNA on the clasp, as part of a mixed profile (hey, that already sounds like contamination, doesn't it?) and the absence of any other physical evidence in Ms Kercher's room belonging to him (not just DNA). Why is there no other evidence? Why should we not expect to see it, if he were there?

Explain also, the absence of any physical evidence of Ms Knox's presence? Explain all this in the context of all the physical evidence discovered in the room, abundantly belonging only to Guede and Ms Kercher.

Explain what happened in a manner consistent with the evidence in the room and the absence of any transfer evidence on Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito.

Get ready for some incomprehensible analogy involving teenage girls.